I find this question more appropriate for the people of this forum who dont believe in God, but,Whether you believe in "The Man" or not, do you think there is such a place as Heaven and Hell?Take into Consideration the facts of certain individuals who have comitted Mass Crimes over the past centuries and Milleniums.[}:)][}:)][}:)]

So, to clarify my question, Do You Believe in Heaven and Hell?

P.S Try to be as Specific as possible when answering your question.

Oh and here's a gif. for you to enjoy

-----------------------Xbox Live GamerTag: RazorXV7/ /RazorXV9

"If you're killed, you've lost a very important part of your life."-Brooke Shields

"A verbal contract is not worth the paper it's written on."-Samuel Goldwyn

"The private enterprise system indicates that some people have higher incomes than others."-Gerry Brown

As awareness has increased about the high levels of mercury in some kinds of canned tuna fish, tuna has taken on an image problem. Some consumers are shunning the product in favor of other kinds of fish or are avoiding fish altogether. Now 21 percent of consumers say they are extremely concerned about mercury in fish, up from 17% two years ago, according to the NPD Group research firm.

As a result, industry sales are sagging. Since March 2004, when the federal government issued a new advisory about seafood consumption and mercury, sales of canned tuna in the United States swung from modest growth to a steady decline. Sales are down 10 percent in the last year, causing a revenue loss of $150 million for the $1.5 billion industry.

The joint Food and Drug Administration and Environmental Protection Agency advisory was the first time canned tuna fish was mentioned in such warnings. Previously, the agencies has warned only about mercury in swordfish, king mackerel, shark and tilefish.

Hoping to stem the decline and repair tuna's reputation, the industry is trying to arrange a government program to oversee an advertising campaign promoting the benefits of tuna. Called "Tuna - A Smart Catch," the ad campaign would not directly address the mercury issue, but instead would highlight the various health benefits of tuna fish.

In one TV ad, moms proclaim that tuna has "Way less fat than beef and pork, "Contains no carbs and is "good for us".

But the ads, which have been created by Marriner Marketing in Columbia, will not appear on TV screens any time soon. The tuna industry is waiting for government approval of its ad program, to be administered by a group to be called the American Council for Tuna. David G. Burney, executive director of the United States Tuna Foundation, which is overseeing the creation of the council, says the industry already has the support of the National Marine Fisheries Service, a division of the Department of Commerce, but is waiting for approval from the Office of Management and Budget, which oversees all government regulatory programs.

John Stiker, an executive vice president at Bumble Bee, said he was hoping the ad campaign would start next spring.

The American Council for Tuna follows in the footsteps of Department of Agriculture "checkoff" programs that have financed the "Got Milk" campaign and the "Beef. It's What's for Dinner" ads. Like these ad campaigns, the tuna program will not receive any government funding and will be supported through a fee imposed on all tuna producers.

Mr. Burney of the United States Tuna Foundation says he is hoping to raise $25 million in the first year, the majority of which will go toward advertising and the rest to other marketing efforts, like payments to public relations agencies. Contributing to the pot would be not only the three largest tuna companies - Bumble Bee, Chicken of the Sea and StarKist, which together account for roughly 85 percent of the tuna sold in the United States - but also dozens of small family-owned companies that operate fishing boats, and import companies that sell private-label tuna fish to supermarkets.

Mr. Stiker of Bumble Bee says he hopes the ads will reassure consumers that tuna is a "wonder food".

"It's got these great omega 3's that you really can't get in any other typical lunch food, but we found that Americans just don't think of it as being very contemporary," Mr. Stiker said.

Mr. Stiker and Mr. Burney do not dispute that tuna is laced with mercury, which is a known toxin, but they say that, despite government warnings, the levels are still small enough that they do not pose a serious risk.

The F.D.A. and E.P.A. guidelines issued in March 2004 advised pregnant women, women of childbearing age and young children not to consume more than six ounces, or one can, of "chunk white" albacore tuna a week. For "chunk light" tuna, which comes from the smaller skipjack fish and contains less mercury, the recommended consumption limit is 12 ounces a week.

Mercury is of particular concern for fetuses because scientists believe that mercury in the mother's body passes to the fetus and may accumulate there. Young children are vulnerable because mercury can have a damaging effect on developing brains. Scientists at the National Academy of Sciences have said that adults can also be at risk if mercury levels are high enough. Symptoms of mercury toxicity include kidney troubles, irritability, tremors, changes in vision or hearing, and memory problems.

Mr. Burney says he is convinced that getting mercury toxicity from tuna is impossible. While his wife was pregnant, he said, she consumed a can of albacore tuna almost every day. Mr. Stiker says his three boys, 9-year-old triplets, eat several cans of albacore a week.

Mr. Burney says that studies funded by the Tuna Foundation show mercury levels in a variety of types of tuna have not increased in the last 30 years. "It takes many, many years before mercury in the atmosphere reaches areas of the ocean where it can enter the food chain," Mr. Burney said.

Environmentalists believe that higher mercury levels in the atmosphere, much of which come from the emissions of coal-powered electricity plants, work their way into water sources and then into the food chain. Mr. Burney contends that because tuna are deepwater ocean fish, it takes many years for atmospheric mercury to find its way into their flesh.

-----------------------"We apologize for the error in last week's paper In which we stated that Mr. Arnold Dogbody was a defective in the police force. We meant, of course, that Mr. Dogbody is a detective in the police farce."-Correction notice in the Ely Standard, a British newspaper

For those who haven’t seen this yet, it's a must view!!!!CHECK IT OUT!!!!

-----------------------"We apologize for the error in last week's paper In which we stated that Mr. Arnold Dogbody was a defective in the police force. We meant, of course, that Mr. Dogbody is a detective in the police farce."-Correction notice in the Ely Standard, a British newspaper

For those who haven’t seen this yet, it's a must view!!!!CHECK IT OUT!!!!

Ok i know very little about this topic and it may have been discussed in another folder but "what the hey" i'll show you the article anyway!

18:09 12 August 2005 NewScientist.com news service Gaia Vince

Researchers have finally found evidence for what good Catholic boys have known all along – erotic images make you go blind. The effect is temporary and lasts just a moment, but the research has added to road-safety campaigners’ calls to ban sexy billboard-advertising near busy roads, in the hope of preventing accidents.

The new study by US psychologists found that people shown erotic or gory images frequently fail to process images they see immediately afterwards. And the researchers say some personality types appear to be affected more than others by the phenomenon, known as “emotion-induced blindness”.

David Zald, from Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee, and Marvin Chun and colleagues from Yale University in Connecticut, showed hundreds of images to volunteers and asked them to pick a specific image from the rapid sequence. Most of the images were landscape or architectural scenes, but the psychologists included a few emotionally charged images, portraying violent or sexually provocative scenes.

The closer these emotionally charged images occurred prior to the target image, the more frequently people failed to spot the target image, the researchers found.

“We observed that people failed to detect visual images that appeared one-fifth of a second after emotional images, whereas they can detect those images with little problem after neutral images,” Zald says.

Primitive brain“We think there is essentially a bottleneck for information processing and if a certain type of stimulus captures attention, it can jam up the bottleneck so subsequent information can’t get through,” Zald explains. “It appears to happen involuntarily. The stimulus captures attention and once allocated to that particular stimulus, no other stimuli can get through” for several tenths of a second.

He believes that a primitive part of the brain, known as the amygdala, may play a part. That region is involved in evaluating sensory input according to its emotional relevance and has an autonomic role, influencing heart rate and sweating.

“It is possible that emotionally-charged stimuli produce preferential rapid routing of the impulse that bypasses the slower cortical route via the amygdala," Zald told New Scientist. "Patients with amygdala lesions pick out the target image without reacting to violent images, although they show normal blindness reactions when sexual images are introduced, which suggests another mechanism may also be involved.”

Harm avoidersThe researchers think emotion-induced blindness could lead to drivers simply not seeing another car or pedestrian if they have just witnessed an emotionally charged scene, such as an accident or sexually explicit billboard.

The effect could exacerbate the more obvious problem of drivers simply being distracted by large, arresting images. "It's the responsibility of drivers to ensure that when they are behind the wheel they keep their eyes on the job in hand," says a spokeswoman from Brake, a UK road safety organisation.

And some people are more vulnerable than others. The study assessed participants using a personality questionnaire, rating them according to their level of “harm avoidance”. Those scoring highly were more fearful, careful and cautious; those scoring low were more carefree and more comfortable in difficult or dangerous situations.

The researchers found that those with low harm avoidance scores were better able to stay focused on a target image than those with high harm avoidance scores.

“People who are more harm avoidant may not be detecting negative stimuli more than other people, but they have a greater difficulty suppressing that information,” Zald suggests.

The Brake spokeswoman says companies should think about the consequences of placing emotionally charged billboards at dangerous road junctions: “We should be concerned if drivers are experiencing split-second breaks in concentration, which could result in an accident or death on the roads.”